Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:
No, what I meant was that seb is trying to frame the issue in an absurd way despite my earlier clarification.

Oh, OK sorry for the misinterpretation.

No prob, some times I play the ambiguity a little too close, just in the spirit of merry discussion.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

They claim that the Pope is unscientific and yet, in typical liberal fashion, ignore the fact that there's more undernourished people now than in 1990.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

They claim that the Pope is unscientific and yet, in typical liberal fashion, ignore the fact that there's more undernourished people now than in 1990.

Don't you understand? More people have moved up the social ladder in the last 20 years than ever before! That means capitalism works and the answer to all humanities ills.

Truly, it is the end of history!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

They claim that the Pope is unscientific and yet, in typical liberal fashion, ignore the fact that there's more undernourished people now than in 1990.

I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm, Cheesecat.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.

Who's he railing against, then? No country on earth runs an unfettered capitalist market, so unless he's warning us of some version of the future he's glimpsed through a palantir...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

Oh Gawd. That piece made me want to pour battery acid in my eyes. My cat's bowel mouvements contains more informative content on the current state of the world's economy that this waste of screen space.

And "Reason"??? Could you please advertise more evidently that your principal argumentative techniques is going to be sophistry?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Could you please advertise more evidently that your principal argumentative techniques is going to be sophistry?

I'm sure it can be done: for example, here and here.

Bit of a fashion among a certain crowd.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

They claim that the Pope is unscientific and yet, in typical liberal fashion, ignore the fact that there's more undernourished people now than in 1990.

I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.

The article is coming from a classbook liberal point of view, not the Pope.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

They claim that the Pope is unscientific and yet, in typical liberal fashion, ignore the fact that there's more undernourished people now than in 1990.

I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.

The article is coming from a classbook liberal point of view, not the Pope.

I was commenting more on KM's article I need to spend some time and read your link too.

Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Could you please advertise more evidently that your principal argumentative techniques is going to be sophistry?

I'm sure it can be done: for example, here and here.

Bit of a fashion among a certain crowd.

AH! See, on the Francophonie side of things, we have http://www.amazon.fr/Trait%C3%A9-dAth%C3%A9ologie-Michel-Onfray-ebook/dp/B005OWJ5QE. It doesn't have the same tacky title, but I'm sure it's the same crap inside. Although it's not fair for me to say that, I still just haven't been able to force myself to read anything by either Dawkins or Hitchens that was longer than 5 paragraphs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

They claim that the Pope is unscientific and yet, in typical liberal fashion, ignore the fact that there's more undernourished people now than in 1990.

I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.

The article is coming from a classbook liberal point of view, not the Pope.

Well, perhaps neoliberal. But this is a communication problem too, here, this article piece is seen as conservative, and generally, a north american will oppose conservatism and liberalism. [Edit] The author is a self-proclaimed libertarian, which is kind of a weird beast in the States. Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions.

A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions.

A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.

Koalas are responsible for 86% of all deaths in Australia.

You're on to something with this "making gak up" thing. It's pretty fun.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Reason Magazine responds to his popeness: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i

They claim that the Pope is unscientific and yet, in typical liberal fashion, ignore the fact that there's more undernourished people now than in 1990.

I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.

The article is coming from a classbook liberal point of view, not the Pope.

Well, perhaps neoliberal. But this is a communication problem too, here, this article piece is seen as conservative, and generally, a north american will oppose conservatism and liberalism. [Edit] The author is a self-proclaimed libertarian, which is kind of a weird beast in the States. Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions.

A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.

Liberal as the IR point of view called liberalism.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions.

A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.

Koalas are responsible for 86% of all deaths in Australia.

You're on to something with this "making gak up" thing. It's pretty fun.

Case.
In.
Point.

 LordofHats wrote:
You know when this guy got picked as Pope, I said I liked him.

*reads article*

Yep. Still like him

I'm pretty critical of the Catholic church as a general rule. As a recovering catholic, now atheist, I sorta delight in torturing my bible thumping relatives with the CC's near omnipresent nonsense.


... I have to admit, I like Pope Francis. He's kinda awesome. Doesn't change my views, but he's at least worthy of the moniker "spiritual leader".

 Haight wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
You know when this guy got picked as Pope, I said I liked him.

*reads article*

Yep. Still like him

I'm pretty critical of the Catholic church as a general rule. As a recovering catholic, now atheist, I sorta delight in torturing my bible thumping relatives with the CC's near omnipresent nonsense.


... I have to admit, I like Pope Francis. He's kinda awesome. Doesn't change my views, but he's at least worthy of the moniker "spiritual leader".

My dads catholic and liberal so this the the first pope he has liked

Manchu wrote:
Now you're just chasing nonsense.

Unless you can pick some thing that developed outside of history, then everything came from something else and the excercise is silly.

Not at all. For better or worse, Christianity is a basic and pervasive component of the inescapable lens that is worldview, at least for Westerners.

Recognising that christianity is important is a mile away from what you appear to be doing here.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

AH! See, on the Francophonie side of things, we have http://www.amazon.fr/Trait%C3%A9-dAth%C3%A9ologie-Michel-Onfray-ebook/dp/B005OWJ5QE. It doesn't have the same tacky title, but I'm sure it's the same crap inside. Although it's not fair for me to say that, I still just haven't been able to force myself to read anything by either Dawkins or Hitchens that was longer than 5 paragraphs.

I have never read Hitchens but Dawkins popular science books are good and informative, he is a professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford after all.

As usual I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to say how much I like this Pope. I'm not a Catholic, and disagree with various Catholic teachings (spiritual and social) but this guy just impresses the heck out of me, and not just for the intense concern he seems to have for the poor and oppressed.

Part of what I find most fascinating is that his core teachings and even many of his stances on some of the more hot button social issues don't seem to actually differ from what seems to be basic church doctrine. However, the things he emphasizes as important and de-emphasizes as not central show a set of priorities are so radically different from what we've come to expect from the Catholic Church.

I also am blown away by his lifestyle of driving a crappy car, living in an apartment, wearing not-flashy clothes (Ratzinger and your red prada shoes!) taking time to get out of the Popemobile touch poor people. All of this echoed in public statements that decry the social injustices of our age. It's all very inspiring and seems pretty Jesus-like.

Time will tell whether the Pope's spoken opinions become church policy, but it's certainly shaping up to be a not-boring papacy.

As a side note, my brother converted to Catholicism a few years back and is entering the Jesuits, the order that Francis comes from. We've always supported his decisions, even when we didn't totally understand them, but for me, seeing this Pope in action puts a different and even more positive light on little bro's chosen vocation. He could do alot worse than having Francis as his boss.

 Seaward wrote:
Who's he railing against, then? No country on earth runs an unfettered capitalist market, so unless he's warning us of some version of the future he's glimpsed through a palantir...

Lots of people argue for a move to unfettered capitalism and a winding back of the social safety net. And these people have had considerable success in the last couple of decades. I presume the Pope is talking about those people.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Who's he railing against, then? No country on earth runs an unfettered capitalist market, so unless he's warning us of some version of the future he's glimpsed through a palantir...

Lots of people argue for a move to unfettered capitalism and a winding back of the social safety net. And these people have had considerable success in the last couple of decades. I presume the Pope is talking about those people.

That would be my assumption as well. In the "battle" (for lack of a better word) between those who wish to move toward more unfettered capitalism with an decreased safety net, and those who wish to have capitalism more restrained with an eye toward protecting those at the bottom, the Pope seems to have made it very clear which side he is on.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Although it's not fair for me to say that, I still just haven't been able to force myself to read anything by either Dawkins or Hitchens that was longer than 5 paragraphs.

Really? I consider The Selfish Gene one of the best science books I've ever read. Likewise, I thought Why Orwell Matters (along with Hitchen's book on Jefferson) were great reads. Their books on religion are socratic dialogue pieces written to inflame debate (and of course, make money doing so)--so it's natural that they are so divisive.

That said, they are (or sadly were in HItchen's case) terrific authors.

 Haight wrote:



I'm pretty critical of the Catholic church as a general rule. As a recovering catholic, now atheist, I sorta delight in torturing my bible thumping relatives with the CC's near omnipresent nonsense.
".

Why? What purpose does that serve? I never understand this attitude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eilif wrote:
As usual I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to say how much I like this Pope. I'm not a Catholic, and disagree with various Catholic teachings (spiritual and social) but this guy just impresses the heck out of me, and not just for the intense concern he seems to have for the poor and oppressed.

I really think a lot of that has to due with the fact that he's from South America and has been part of a religious constituency that has some truly impoverished people. That's not to say previous Popes haven't at all, but Francis' background as a man of the common person is by all accounts I've seen, genuine.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Their books on religion are socratic dialogue pieces written to inflame debate (and of course, make money doing so)--so it's natural that they are so divisive.

That said, they are (or sadly were in HItchen's case) terrific authors.

Yeah, both authors are really good examples of why people should stick to writing on what they know. In their fields of expertise both write great stuff (actually I'm still not a huge fan of Hitchens, but I wouldn't write him off as a lightweight), but on the subject of other people's faith, they both write total nonsense.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions.

A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.

Koalas are responsible for 86% of all deaths in Australia.

You're on to something with this "making gak up" thing. It's pretty fun.

They do kill that many people Seaward, mostly with Chlamydia. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~koalas/factsprobs.html

 sebster wrote:
Lots of people argue for a move to unfettered capitalism and a winding back of the social safety net. And these people have had considerable success in the last couple of decades. I presume the Pope is talking about those people.

"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape."

"While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules."

Sounds to me like he's talking about what is, not what might be. I don't know of any state that exercises no form of control over the economy.

Speaking of people sticking to their field...does that apply to the Pope?

 Seaward wrote:
Sounds to me like he's talking about what is, not what might be. I don't know of any state that exercises no form of control over the economy.

If you want to get that literal, then sure. Or if you want to consider government involvement in the economy as a sliding scale, and consider 'unfettered' not just the absolute extreme of zero government involvement, but states along that are far enough along that end of the scale, then it should be pretty clear what he's talking about.

Speaking of people sticking to their field...does that apply to the Pope?

Social commentary is his field. Now, that doesn't mean this pope or any other, or any religious figure for that matter, is automatically going to make good commentary, but claiming that they should keep quiet on matters of equality is missing the point of religion somewhat.

 sebster wrote:
Recognising that christianity is important is a mile away from what you appear to be doing here.

I can see you'd like to force the issue but I'd rather chose my own position, you see?